ALJDEC

00F-2237-ROC-com · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-06-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 25, 2001 APPEARANCES: Complainant did not appear at the scheduled compliance hearing; Daniel P. Martinez appeared on behalf of the Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Administrative Law Judge delayed convening the compliance hearing for fifteen minutes to allow additional time for Complainant to make an appearance at the scheduled compliance hearing. However, Complainant did not appear at the compliance hearing. 2. On June 15, 2001, Complainant filed a document with the Office of Administrative Hearings containing the representation that the Complainant would not be appearing at the June 25, 2001 hearing and asserting that the June 25, 2001 hearing and another administrative hearing not before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge “will be cancelled”. Thus, by such filing, Complainant showed that with respect to the instant compliance hearing, he would not be opposing Respondent at the compliance hearing. 3. Previously, the Registrar of Contractors received a document containing representations that Respondent has been denied access to Complainant’s home and could not complete certain required work . Although Complainant had initially filed a document with the Registrar of Contractors contesting Respondent’s representations, Complainant subsequently filed the above-mentioned June 14, 2001 document indicating that he would not be appearing at the compliance hearing to oppose the Respondent. 4. The record of this matter does not show that Respondent was granted timely and reasonable access to accomplish the specified corrective work set forth in the Order entered in this matter by the Registrar of Contractors dated January 24, 2001. Under all of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions in attempting to comply with the above-mentioned Order is deemed the equivalent of satisfying specified work that was set forth as a condition to avoid disciplinary action against Respondent’s license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The weight of the evidence of record supports a finding that Respondent should be deemed to have complied with the above-mentioned Order. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the above, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Respondent be deemed to have complied with the Registrar’s Order dated January 24, 2001, and this matter be closed Done this day, June 26, 2001.

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater, Director 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826